On Fri, 9 Nov 2018, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018, Amir Caspi wrote:
I'd be interested to know if there's a performance difference between my
two proposed rules. I suspect the second should run (slightly) faster.
It looks that way - only .0001s difference on *some* messages.
Re body vs. rawbody:
I fixed the MIME boundaries and the body version stopped working (as
expected), so I added rawbody versions.
I do note that the first version of the rule checked in was a body rule, and
it did hit on a bunch of spam... Any speculation as to why?
revisions checked in for side-by-side tests:
Sending svn/trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/20_misc_testing.cf
Transmitting file data .done
Committing transaction...
Committed revision 1846277.
Note the rule name changes - that's temporary, the survivor's name will be
cleaned up a bit.
Initial results (again, all corpora aren't in yet)...
The rawbody rules perform much better (unsurprising), and the ASCII-only
one has a better raw S/O:
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20181110-r1846283-n/__RW_HTML_ENTITY_ASCII_RAW/detail
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20181110-r1846283-n/__AC_HTML_ENTITY_BONANZA_SHRT_RAW/detail
The body one is still getting hits:
https://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20181110-r1846283-n/__AC_HTML_ENTITY_BONANZA_SHRT_BODY/detail
...but it's 99-100% overlap with the RAW version so it looks like it's
purely due to misformatting of the message.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfect Security and Absolute Safety are unattainable; beware
those who would try to sell them to you, regardless of the cost,
for they are trying to sell you your own slavery.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow: Veterans Day
